From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manning v. Wambold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 27, 1911
146 App. Div. 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

Summary

In Manning v. Wambold (146 App. Div. 318) we expressed the opinion that where a plaintiff causes the defendant to be arrested and put to bail, there is an obligation upon the plaintiff to bring the action as promptly to trial as may be done under ordinary circumstances.

Summary of this case from Verderber v. Stine

Opinion

July 27, 1911.

Edward A. Pfeffer, for the appellant.

Rawson L. Smith, for the respondent.


The defendant appeals from an order of the Special Term entered in Westchester county denying his motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to prosecute this action. The action was brought on May 27, 1907, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained through the alleged negligence of the defendant. On the bringing of the action the plaintiff secured an order of arrest against the defendant, by virtue of which the defendant was arrested and held to bail in the sum of $500. He was released on giving a surety company's bond, upon which he has been obliged to pay an annual premium of ten dollars a year ever since. The plaintiff gave a notice of trial for the April term of 1908, but apparently filed no note of issue to place his case upon the calendar. He did nothing further until October, 1909, when he noticed the case for trial. His client was absent from the State at that time and the case was stricken from the calendar, in which condition it remained until the defendant made this motion in May, 1911. The plaintiff shows no reasonable cause whatever for his long delay. In view of the fact that he caused the defendant to be arrested and put to bail, the least he could have done would have been to bring his action promptly to trial at one of the numerous terms of this court in Westchester county in the meantime. While we are loath to interfere with the discretion of the Special Term in matters of this kind, we feel this case presents a situation in which the motion to dismiss should have been granted. The order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute is granted, with ten dollars costs.

JENKS, P.J., THOMAS, CARR and RICH, JJ., concurred; WOODWARD, J., dissented.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss complaint for failure to prosecute granted, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Manning v. Wambold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 27, 1911
146 App. Div. 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)

In Manning v. Wambold (146 App. Div. 318) we expressed the opinion that where a plaintiff causes the defendant to be arrested and put to bail, there is an obligation upon the plaintiff to bring the action as promptly to trial as may be done under ordinary circumstances.

Summary of this case from Verderber v. Stine
Case details for

Manning v. Wambold

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL J. MANNING, Respondent, v . CHARLES WAMBOLD, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jul 27, 1911

Citations

146 App. Div. 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1911)
130 N.Y.S. 616

Citing Cases

Verderber v. Stine

The plaintiff had caused the defendant to be arrested and put to bail, and he remained in technical custody…

McIntyre v. Branner

While the motion to dismiss was addressed largely to the discretion of the learned county judge, and this…